Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19680603_regularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA VILLAGE COUNCIL HELD AT VILLAGE HALL ON MONDAY, JUNE 3, 1968 Members answering rollcall were Councilmen Courtney, Johnson, Shaw, VanValkenburg, and Mayor Bredesen, . MINUTES of the Regular Meeting of May 20, 1968, were approved as corrected by motion of Councilman Courtney, seconded by Councilman VanValkenburg, and carried. Councilman Johnson moved an amendment to make a correction in the minutes on page 92, ninth line from the bottom. "Community Store .** ORDINANCE #261-16'1 APPROVED ON SECOND READING. byVillage Manager and had been placed on file at first reading. that the problem here on Mr. DUOOS'S project was that the hearing had been continued until the deed restriction coald be filed, so that Mr, Duoos could use the further proposed plan, but he hadn't purchased the land and doesn't have fee title to it. He has filed a letter confirming his willingness to file a deed restriction to limit the use of this land to not more than twenty-four units and a height of not more than two stories above the basement. pass the ordinance but not publish it until the deed restriction is filed. Hite said that the Vernon Avenue traffic situation at Hansen Road could be eased by reinstalling the left turn lanes on Vernon and by improving the radius for northbound Hansen. soon as they can get to it. Duoos was present and had drawings of proposed building. offered Second Reading with provision that we hold publication until deed res- triction is filed, as follows: Where it says "C-1" he corrected it to read, I Affidavits of Notice were presented Mr. Hyde said Mr. Hyde pointed out that it is possible to Mr. The county has advised that they will make both changes as Nobody wished to be heard in this connection. Mr. Councilman Johnson ORDINANCE NO; 261-161 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 261 * (ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE VILLAGE OF EDINA THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: (Miultiple Residence District) of Ordinance No. 261 of revised ordinances of the Village of Edina,*as amended, is hereby further amended by adding the following subparagraph: ESTABLISHING ADDITIONAL R-4 MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT Section 1. Paragraph 1, Multiple Residence District Boundaries of Section 4, District R-4 : "(27)s Lots Thirteen (13) and Fourteen (14), Richmond Hills I11 Addition Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after and Parcel 2100 in Section 33, Township 117, Range 21." its passage and publication according to law. Motion for adoption of ordinance was seconded there were five ayes and the ordinance was ad Y Mayor Deputy Village Cler ORDINANCE 8261-162 GRANTED SECOND READING. by Village Manager and had been placed on file at first reading. dicated that this rezoning for Norman Construction Company had been granted first reading on May 20, pending the legal status of the zoning. Schwartzbauer states the entire history and says that Council should approve the rezoning to R-4 and grant the variances since these requirements where variances are necessary under R-4 zoning would not have been applicable under Community Stores zoning in existence when the permit was issued. Mr. Hyde further stated that we have had one request from neighbors to the south that could be easily . complied with. south of Valley View, and the neighbors have requested that we not sell it. TJe have had an offer from one of the neighbors in the area, but the offer was not sufficiently good, and there is no necessity for selling, so the opinion was that we should probably keep it as a buffer. Avenue, made the statement that he wasn't in the country when First Reading was made and would like to ask what Second Reading meant, and what does legal reading. mean? Mayor Bredesen pointed out that we have opinions from our attorneys showing that we did rezone for this purpose on at least two occasions, and as a result their Affidavits of Notice were presented Mr. Hyde in- A letter from Attorney The Village owns land there for drainage purposes on Wooddale Mr. Michael E. Birt, 6113 St. Johns He also asked why must the rezoning take place? Could we not rezone? 6/3/68 c opinion is that if we deny the rezoning for this purpose at this time, we would be in some difficulty to try to sustain such a decision simply because the previous owner.and present owner or option-holder purchased this property on the basis that it would be rezoned for this purpose. viously rezoned.. Mr. Hite said this was first zoned Community Store District, and the people proposed to build an apartment building. It would permit apart- ments, and approval was granted at that time which was three or four years ago. Property was subsequently purchased by another party who submitted basically the same plan we are now considering.and asked if the first proposal would apply. The answer was .('yesk1 in December, 1966, and a different plan was approved at that time. This is the third approach but with the second plan. The Council adopted a new zoning ordinance and this land was reclassified C-1. Mr. Hite, when askedif those earlier approvals meant anything, answered in the affirmative. Mr. Whitlock agreed. Mr. Hite then stated that Planning Commission recommended that if the apartment building were to be bui&t, it should be rezoned from Commercial use to Multiple Family. Mr. Birt objected to apartment size and stated his con- cern about possible lack of landscaping, etc. had the right in 1964.to erect an apartment house. ordinance at that time would allow. It could not exceed forty feet in height. Since request was made and permission given to put up an apartment building, the zoning ordinances have been changed and this made new restrktions on size and number of units. We as a Village could not legally enforce the new zoning ord- inance. much effect because people have invested and are not necessarily under the con- trol of the new ordinance. He expressed his feeling that the owner could build according to the decision made in 1964. Mr. Birt stated that other property owners object also, and that a number of families about four years ago retained counsel, and this attorney was present at the hearing two weeks ago, but the group has not received a report on this as yet. Mayor Bredesen said that their counsel.should be here tonight, and that we could go on for years not coming to a decision if an attorney does not identify himself and does.not appear. Mayor Bredesen gave Mr. Birt a copy of the letter from Dorsey, Marquart, Windhorst, West & Halladay written by Edward N. Schwartzbauer. Mr. Hyde advised that the owners wanted it built under Community Store provisions, and that under present zoning they can legally build. Mr. Courtney stated that the idea is that if a man is entitled to.build his apartment building at the present time, do we change the zoning from C-1 to R-4 so that we have more power to dictate more stringent rules and regulations? Mr. Whitlock said that legally we cannot use the new ord- inance in this context. Mr. Birt asked then what the variances are. Mayor Bred- esen indicated that the height has been reduced and that the variances are for the number of units permitted. Mr. Hite said that we left it in 1966 with the neighbors wanting to screen parking lots, etc. advise him of the specific committments. take the opinion of our legal staff, although he does not personally favor apartment buildings, and we shouldn't go to court on it. here stated that he feels that the size in inappropriate, but that the.Village Attorney gave an opinion that we must take. relying on this opinion, so there is nothing we can do. neighbors are concerned with size, appearance, etc., and that he talked with the owner and understood now that the number of units was increased. He was advised by the Council that it had been decreased from a former plan, Councilman Johnson stated again that we have no alternative. tially the same plan on which PlanningCommission recommended approval. Mr. Ack- erberg was in the audience and rose to say that they are using the exact same plan with English architecture, and that there is no change in size, height, etc. Mr. Hite suggested that the two men should'sit down and work out the details. Ackerberg then advised that they will screen the parking lot with a five foot cedar fence. Mr. Birt asked Mr. Ackerberg if there would be any landscaping. He added that he was very concerned about appearance and possible assessment of drain- age of the swamp, asking for assurance against this. The Mayor stated that there were no storm sewer drainage assessments, and that the builder must make it an attractive building to get his money and to get a return on his investment. Birt asked if there will be tezracing, and the reply was that there is no assurance that this will be done, as the Village can't legislate esthetics. Mr. Hite asked whether other provisions of the new ordinance, such as .landscaping, could be en- forced. Mr, Whitlock advised that we do have some control. .Councilman Courtney stated at.this point that we are only passing a zoning law and not an ordinance which says whether or not the contractor could build an apartment house. Mayor Mr. Birt asked if this was pre- Mr. Whitlock advised that the owner He could build anything our Mayor Bredesen said that the fact that we changed the ordinance has not Mr. Birt then asked if we could Mayor Bredesen replied that we must Councilman Johnson Mr. Ackerberg.purchased the property Mr. Birt stated that the Mr. Hite explained that it is essen- Mr. Mr. I 6/3/68 1 Bredesen said that legally this man could force us to issue a building permit the way it is. He stated that we are trying to put everything on top of the table. asked if the Council will.allowvariances. Mr. Hite said that there are devi- ations from existing R-4 provisions. Dorothy Harris, 6111 St..Johns Avenue, asked how many units there would be, .sixty-three planned. View and asked for a comparison of the number of units. building (Mr. Victorsen's) has 14 units. be a swimming pool, and the Council advised that there would be. Courtney offered Second Reading as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 261-162 We would have had to sue him to prevent him from doing it. Mr. Birt Mayor Bredesen replied that there are Mr. Hite said that Mrs. Harris pointed out an apartment house east on Valley Mrs. Harris inquired if there would Councilman AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 261 (ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE VILLAGE OF EDINA ESTABLISHING ADDITIONAL R-4 MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, .ORDAINS: Section 4, (Multiple Residence District) of Ordinance No, 261 of revised ord- inances of the Village of Edina, as amended, is hereby further amended by add- . ing the following subparagraph: 'Section 1. Paragraph 1, Multiple Residence District Boundaries of District R-4: "(28) That tract of land situated in Section 19, Township 28N, Range . 24W, described as follows: 'Beginning at the Southeast Corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4; thence West along the South line thereof 400,O feet; thence North and parallel to the East line of .said.Southeast 1/4 of Southwest 1/4 411.0 feet to the center of Valley View Road as travelled; thence Southeasterly along the said center line of Valley View Road 422.0 feet to therEast line of said Southeast 1/4 of Southwest 1/4; thence South 282.00 feet to the place of beginning.'" . Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication accor Motion for adoption of ordinance was se alkenburg, and on rollcall there were five ayes and th ATTEST : - Deputy Village Clerg ' ALLEY VACATED BETWEEN JACKSON AND VANBUREN AVENUES FROM MALONEY AVENUE TO BEL- MORE LANE. as to form and ordered placed on file. by twenty residents) who reside about,half and half on Jackson and VanBuren Streets. that there were not, whereuponXouncilman Johnson offered the following reso- lution and moved its adoption: . Affidavits of notice were presented by Village Manager, approved Mr. Hyde pre6erited a petition signed Councilman Johnson asked if there were any garages, and was answered RESOLUTION VACATING A PORTION OF ALLEY BETWEEN JACKSON AND VANBUREN AVENUES . FROM MALONEY AVENUE TO BELMORE LANE WHEREAS, two weeks' published,, posted and mailed notice of a Hearing tobe held on June 3, 1968, at 7:OO porn., on the proposed alley vacation here- inafter described has been given and made and a Hearing has been held thereon . by .the Village Council: . NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Village Council of thevillage of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota, that the following described portion 05 an alley, all as platted and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota, be and is hereby vacated effective July 16, 1968, unless on OE before said date this resolution is amended, annul- led, or rescinded by the Village Council: , "All that North-South alley lying in Block Fourteen (14) West Minneapolis Heights Addition, as the same is recorded .in the office of the Register of Deeds of Hennepin County, Minnesota ." Motion for adoption ,of the resolution was and'on rollcall there were five ayes, ATTEST : Mayor Y. Deputy Village Clerk 4 6/3/68 Ti LOT DIVISION, LOTS 11 AND 12, MENDELSSOHN ADDITION RESET FOR JUNE 17. explained that this was continued from May 6, because of a neighborhood excep- Mr. Hyde tion to the proposal. questing a lot division of two existing lots running east and west into two lots running in a north,and south direction. Lane, and Dr. Wm. H. Ford, 401 Blake Road, immediately adjacent residents, object to Mr. Stire's plan. It was stated that John Street was vacated in 1955, and all the land vacated went to Dr. Lyon. Mr. Stire requests redividing these two lots leaving two lots each 73% feet wide and 200 feet deep, both hav- ing frontage on Belmore Lane. sidered the division and tabled it pending the outcome of soil tests. proved that houses can be built there with normal footings. has also considered it, and has granted variances from 75 feet down to 734, feet, trying to make two accessible lots. decision and was justified in granting the variances according to established criteria. proposing to provide access to Lot 11 from John Street, so that the lots will not have to be divided north and south. in order to assure that the lots stay as they are. "Either one of the solutions satisfies what we are looking forYt1' said Mr. Hoisington, "Both provide access to public streets. Bredesen asked what the objections were to both proposals. Mr. Hoisington re- plied that Mr. Stire feels that the land will not have as much value if they are not redivided. iance, and sanitary sewer connections would incur some additional cost for 'Lot 11. The neighbors feel lower value homes will be built if the divisioh is approved because of the 73.25 foot width. Mr. O'Connor, owner of Lot 10, said that he and Dr, Lyon will provide adequate access, and the home to be built on Lot 1% will back up to the home on Blake Road backyard to backyard. then asked for a deeding of the strip, and Mr. O'Connor agreed to deed it. Hite explained that the d+stance is further to the sewer from Lot 11 than it would be if both lots faced Belmore Lane. this piece of property'in 1957, and that somebody had divided the easterly 36.5 feet of ll'and 12 before he bought it; leaving Lot 11 without access to John Street. Mr. Montgomery, representing Mr, Stire as his attorney, stated that Mr. Stire has moved to Georgia. He said that the division of the easterly 36.5 feet of Lots 11 and 12 would have been prohibited by,the present ordinance, and that in 1941 it was divided. and the Village Council later vacated John Street. and was tax forfeited in 1963 and remained off the tax rolls and'was not sold until 1967. He indicated that Mr. Stire had acquired it from the State. Across the street there was a division whereby a lot which was-175 feet deep facing on John Street was divided so that one parcel was 65 feet by 100 feet, lowering the value of the site here in question. He indicated that it can't be sold the way it is. Mr. Montgomery submitted that the division be approved as the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals have approved it, and that the Council should agree. Mr. James Daniels, attorney for Dr. Ford, said that objections to the proposal are because there are deviations from the ordinance and that such deviations in lot width shouldn't be permitted because there is no hardship. At - one time Mr. Stire owned Lot 2, Block 12, Mendelssohn Addition and was conveyed Lot 11. in on Belmore, and, he stated, the Village of Edina filled this in at the ex- pense of the taxpayer. opposing residents and also an agreement from Roy F. O'Connor and Dr. Lyon creating an easement from John Streetr to Lot 11, and requestkd Council to con- sider that these lots were bought not only for building but for speculation, and he asked if a hardship really exists. what Mr. St.ire's objections were. omfc factors. Mayor Bredesen stated then that a house can be put on Lot 11 so that the backyard can adjoin with Lot 12, and so that the southerly lot can haw a house which would face diagonally and use the site properly. Mr. Ronald E. Replogle, 416 John Street, said Mr. Montgomery's argument is that the lot is unsalable 7- because it was under water. The lot is now filled in and is now salable. Mr. Hoisington pointed out the driveway from the cul-de-sac. Councilman Johnson asked if Mr. O'Connor's'hous& faces the cul-de-sac, and asked about the feasibility of an easement being granted on Dr. Lyon's property along the east side of Lots 11 and 12'from Belmore Lane. sibility because of a storm sewer easement and treees and that access onto John Street would be a better solution. Mr. Hite suggested that everything could be Mr. Hoisington stated that Mr. Robert G. Stire is re- Dr. John D. Lyon, 6233 Belmore Currently Lot 11 has no access to any public - street. laen first confronted with the proposal, the Planning Commission con- These Board of Appeals Board of Appeals made a proper Residents Dr. Lyon and Mr. Roy F. O'Connor, 408 John Street, are They will provide some sort of access Planning Commission approved the division on May 22." Mayor Furthermore, Lot 12 on Belmore would require a depth var- Mr. Hite Mr. Dr. Lyon said that he had purchased The east 36.5 feet,was divided as a separate strip Lot 12 is 146.5 feet in width Lot 11 was low-and was a pond. Last year curbing and paving were put Mr. Daniels submitted a petition with signatures of Mayor Bredesen then asked Mr. Montgomery Mr. Montgomery answered that there are econ- L, Mr.'Hoisington said there was no pos- backing up-to everything else if there were a larger easement to John Street. rear of the lot would be the northwest corner of the lot. If the easement could be Gidened out so that frontage on the cul-de-sac would be 60 feet, a very good lot could be created. Mr. Htte suggested that we couldereate the best possible lot & adding 20 feet to the northerly lot making it 120 feet deep and then the easement widened out to 60 feet,, Mayor Bredesen asked Dr. Lyon if he would add 40 feet to the easement. and had rid himself of waste water and had it filled in and beautified. He said he hates to lose a great deal of it: Mr. O'Connor said he is in favor of increasing the depth of the northerly lot which is 100 feet by 145.5 but that a driveway would be sufficient connecting Lot 11 to John Street. Mr:Courtney suggested talbing it and for Mr, Hoisington to get together with the property owners and look for a com- promise. Mr. Hyde said that he wished to state at this time that the lots were not filled by the Village at the expense of the taxpayer. material which is not expensive. cheaper than hauling it away, and consequently saved the taxpayer money in so doing. Mayor Bredesen asked for a motion. two weeks to work something out. Georgia makes it difficult to contact him. did not live in Edina any more, Mr. Montgomery, as his attorney, should contact him. is not in agreement with the neighbors. moved for coatinuance until something can be worked out with Mr. O'Connor and Dr, Lyon. these men are here, and Mr. Stire is gone and is no longer a resident of the com- munity. Mr, Stire should be contacted directly by Mr. Hoisington or Mr. Montgomery, and Councilman VanValkenburg suggested that Mr. Montgomery call him. Mayor Bredesen stated his preference for the solution with the thumb (neighbor's proposal) and would question if one is not just as good as the other: has his normal rights, said Mayor Bredesen, even without being present. The motion was carried unanimously , and the date for continuance was reset to June 17. HONDO SECOND ADDITION PRELININARY PLAT APPROVAL GRANTED. Affidavits of Notice were presented by Village Manager , approved as to form and ordered placed on file. Mr, Hoisington said Hondo Second Addition was at Shannon Drive south of West 70th Street near Lee Valley Circle, and the final plat was submitted at the same time as M. P, Johnson, which has been approved. a road running across Mr. Daneds property. Mr, Hite said alignment has been 9 staked out and sdrveyed, Mr, Danens was to let the Village know, but we have re- ceived no final decision from Mr': Danens. Mr, Hyde aske'd if a cul-de-sac would solve it,--and Mr. Hofsington replied that it is not a good situation for a cul-de- sac because of the excessive length and poor alignment. anyone wanted to be heard, Mr. Hite said this is the approval that counts. Plan- ning Commission recommends it. lution and moved its adoption: The Dr. Lyon said last year he had it all sodded and contoured This is done with waste The Village put the fill there because it's Councilman Johnson moved for continuance for Mr:Hoisington stated that Mr. Stire's-being in Statement was made that since Mr. Stire Mr. Montgomery said he preferred the proposal of the Planning Commission and Mayor Bredesen asked if Councilman Johnson Councilman Courtney seconded the continuance with the consid eration that However, Mr, Stire still It was tabled then because of disagreement about Mayor Bredesen asked if Councilman VanValkenburg offered the folbwing reso- RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT OF HONDO SECOND ADDITION BE IT RESOLVED by the Village Council of the Village of Edina, Minnesota, that that certain plat entitled ''Hondo Second Addition," platted by Dr. Warren and Margaret Brown, husband and wife, and presented at the Meeting of the Village Coun- cil of June 3, 1968, be and is hereby granted pr Motion for adoption of the resolution was second call there were five ayes, and the resolution ATTEST : ' g&.Y J? 2 Deputy Village Clerk IY - OFFSALE BEER LICENSE APPLICATION FOR SOUTHDALZ SUPERETTE approved by *motion of Councilman VanValkenburg with provision that there is compliance with the rest of the health laws as recommended by Mr. Hyde. seconded by Councilmani (Courtney and carried. VILLAGE'S OFFER ON MUD LAIUI PROPERTY REFUSED. information, and Mr. Hite said we made an offer for 7% acres about a year ago, and Mr. Larry Mosow turned it down: We withdrew the offer. The amout we offered with all specials paid in 1967 was $23,264.28, which was withdrawn on October 2, 1967. Mr. Mosow has now requested that he Councilman VanValkenburg's motion was . Mr. Hyde presented preliminary There are $4,545 in unpaid specials. -. 6/3/68 be paid the amount in the letter and be reimbursed for taxes for 1966, 1967, and 1968. taxes on the property. repayment for 1966 and 1967 taxes which amount ot about $1,318 because it's based on a 1968 value. $22,210.10 represents.net to him. Mr. Larry Mosow, 5620 Wycliff Road, was asked by Mayor Bredesen why we should pay taxes for '66 and '67. Mr. Mosow said because he was refused a building permit for those years. Mayor Bredesen asked what his offer is, and Mr, Mosow said he wants to net $22,210.10. Mr. Hite said $22,210.10 less taxes. .Mr. Mosow wants taxes-because he could not get a permit. Mayor Bredesen pointed out that-this was because of lack of sanitary sewer. Mr. Hyde stated that.he doubts that houses could ever be built, and had so advised Mr. Mosow, and also because it wasspart-of the Mud Lake plan. request for the tax money. Mr. Hyde stated that he gave Mr. Mosow no hope at any time that he.could build on that property. Councilman Johnson said that we should offer'the fair value at this time based on 1968 property. Mosow replied that other lots are selling for far more, and Mr, Hite stated that Mr. Mosow's property doesn't have improvements. Councilman Johnson questioned the figure of $20,901.48, and Mr.' Hite said the last suggested price of $18,718.00 included also taxes for '66 and '67 and was made in 1967. Councilman Johnson asked what-Mr. Kearns said about this offer, and retort by Mr. Hite was that Mr. Kearns' opinion is that we offered too much and paid too much for all the property in the Mud Lake area. Thernell was not'paid for taxes when we purchased his property. Johnson then made a motion that we offer Mr. Mosow $20,901.48 for his property. Councilman VanValkenburg seconded the motion. Motion was carried unanimously. Mr. Mosow then refused the offer from the audience, and Council asserted that an assessment should be made at Mr. Mosow's own evaluation of.the property, so that the taxes can be adjusted. The Village would recommend acceptance of the offer without the We recommend acceptance of the offer without the Mr. Mosow reiterated his Mr. Mr. Hite added that Mr. Councilman PORTION OF VALLEY VIEW ROAD VACATION HEARING-DATE.SET. Mr. Hyde presented a petition for vacation of a portion of Valley View Road and.a hearing date was set for June 17 by motion of Councilman Shaw, seconded.by Councilman VanValkenburg, and carried. INDIANOLA AVENUE PETITION TO BE PLACED IN 50TH AND FRANCE IMPROVEMENT FILE, Mr. Hyde presented a petition from thirteen citizens requesting that Indianola Avenue remain opening onto 50th Street, and suggested that this petition be . placed in the 50th and France Improvement file. Councilman Johnson moved in favor, seconded by Councilman Shaw, and it was carried, KILLARNEY SHORES FINAL PLAT APPROVED EXCEPT FOR LOT 1, BLOCK 1. Planning Commission) Mr. Hoisington pointed on the map to Lot 1, Block 1, Killarney Shores. of all except this one lot because it may be necessary to involve some of that lot in the realignment of Vernon Avenue. other parts would be affected except this, are workingwith the county now and with Council's approval they can get this alignment worked out before Wednesday night. mended that we approve the final platting leaving the one lot out.unti1 Mr. Hite and the highway department can work it out, as-follows: BE IT RESOLVED by the Village Council of the Village of Edina, Minnesota, that that certain plat entitled "Killarney Shores," platted by Evereth G. Thernell and Alice M. Thernell, husbahd and wife, and presented at the Meeting of the Edina Village Council of June 3,-19685 be and is hereby approved with the ex- ception of Lot 1, Block 1. Motion for adoption of the resolution wa and on rollcall there were five ayes, a (Subject to Mr. Hite explained that we are recommending final approval Councilman Johnson asked if any Mr. Hite said no, and that they Councilman VanValkenburg recom- - RESOLUTION ATTEST : /e 1 AoJn Deputy Village Clekk - 41 - DEWEY HILL ROAD STOP SIGN REQUEST REVIEWED. that on April 16, 1968, the Traffic Committee considered the request for a stop sign stopping Dewey Hill Road traffic at Shannon Drive. George Hite presented information Traffic Committee 104 ) 6/3/68 recommended not to install it at that time, and recognized the problem of speeding, but decided to control with enforcement and not a stop sign.. Councilman Courtney said that there has been a definite improvement and things have changed, of this Traffic Commit.tee Meeting and read the last page concerning the total problem of speed control and what might be done about it. Mr. Hite suggested that,Council review these minutes ASSESSMENT INFORMATION SPECIAL MEETING IIEARING DATE SET. Mr. Hyde advised Council that.Mr. Donald Kearns has a vast amount of statisfical information and would like to have a late afternoon meeting from 4:30 to 6:OO p.m. or so some day, A date was set for this meeting on Thursday, June 20, at 4:OO p.m. NINE MILE WEST FIRST ADDITION PLAT CORRECTION APPROVED. Mr. Hite informed Council that there had been a slight surveyor's grror,made in description on this platting, and it should be rectified with a correction. Jobnson,made a resolution that the correction of the error be made as follows: -BE IT RESOLVED by the Village Council of the Village of Edina, Minnesota, that the Land Surveyors Certificate of Correction to Plat for the Nine Mile West First Addition as submitted by Mr. Harry S. Johnson, Registered Land Surveyor, and dated May 27, 1968, be an$:is liereby Motion for adoption of the resolution was rollcall there were five ayes, and the re Councilman RESOLUTION ATTEST: Deputy Village Clerk BID AWARDED ON STEEL.PRODVCTS. FJilliams Hardware Company, high bidder at $1,954.78, and Paper Calmenson Company, low bidder at $1,889.47, for angle iron, round sheets, and metal tubing. Mr. Hyde recommended award to Paper Calmenson, low bidder. for acceptance was seconded by CounCi1rngnrSha~T':and tBe moteon .wa$ Carried, Mr. Hyde presented two bids for steel products; CounCilman Courtney's motion ORDI~TANCE 124-2 GOVERNING SWIMMING POOL BUILDING FEES GIVEN FIRST READING. . Nr. Hyde read ordinance 124-2 which designates a flat fee of $15 for swimming pool building fees instead of on,a cubical footage basis, we incur cost expenses, and Mr. Hyde said that is part of the permit approval. Mr. Hite said there would be additional fees to cover other costs, Councilman Johnson offered the following Ordinance for First Reading: Councilman Shaw-asked if ORDINANCE NO. 124-2 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO, 124 . AS TO FEE FOR PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A. SIJIMMING POOL THEVILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF.EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1, amended to read as follows: "Sec. 5. Permit Fees. a swimming pool shall be the same as the fee for the construction of a building, in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 51B of the Village." upon its paqsage and publication. Section 5 of Ordinance No. 124 of the Village is hereby The fee for a permit for the construction of Sec, 2. This ordinance shall be in.ful1 force and effect immediately HuEfAN RELATIONS COMMITTEE TO BE DISCUSSED, Mr, Hyde advised that &. Whitlock will meet with Mr. 'Nard Lewis, the School Board Attorney, this week to discuss Human .Relations. GLEASON ROAD SIDEIs7ALK OBJECTION PETITION PRESENTED. Kent Calhoun, 6617 Gleason Road, presented a petigion with 32 names registering an objection to the width of the boulevards and sidewalks. Estates, want five feet of parkway and five feet of sidewalk or anything else other than what the Village is putting in, and ask for consideration ofltheir request. Mayor bdesen asked if the improvements are on Village property or the land owner's property, Mr. Calhoun wanted to know if eight feet of boule- vard and five feet of sidewalk is not too much, and Mayor Bredesen replied that in his opinion the wider the boulevard, the higher the value of the land, Mr, Calhoun wished to submit the petition for four, five, or six feet of parkway. Mayor Bredesen said it is better for snow removal and grass cutting. He said the property owner will not find it as bad an experience as he expects. Hite advised that trees are possible with an eight foot boulevard, and not successfully grown with five feet. Frank Bodine, 6525 Gleason, said his yard These people, who reside on Gleason and Valley Mr, 6/3/68 { $05 is sloping, and he is worrying about the lawn with the cutback to make the slope smooth. He said he had to go back about five feet. Councilman Johnson said it can be done gracefully. Mr. Hyde advised.that the Village will check this out and see what can be done, look at Edina Boulevard. Mr. Carl.Valo of 6605 Gleason Road said the gravel will go in June 4, in the morning, and the sidewalk on June 5. Mr. Hyde re- peated that our men would be out there that morning, thinks it is poor planning, and feels it is just too much sidewalk and boulevard, Mr. Hite said the minimum front yard is thirty feet, Mayor Bredesen said the citizens should Mr. Valo expressed that he BURNING BAN SUGGESTED FOR SATURDAY AND SUNDAY AFTERNOONS IN SUMMER. presented a letter on an old problem of burning. Mrs. D. H. Johnson, 6101 .Crescent Drive, had written requesting consideration of Saturday and Sunday burning bans in the afternoons during the summer. Mr. Hyde explained that the reason was because smoke disturbed the enjoyment of outdoor eating and festivities, and suggested that this would be feasible only during June, July, and August. No action was taken. NAME CHANGE FOR MUD LAKE SUGGESTED. of Mud Lake be changed to something else, and Mr. Hyde suggested.Killarney Lake. Councilman Courtney-was- bgreeable. Councilman Courtney made a motion that Mud Lake name be changed to Killarney Lake, Councilman Johnson moved that we refer it to the Park Board. motion was carried unanimously. - e HEARING DATE SET FOR VARIOUS IMPROVEMENTS. On recommendation of Mr. Hite, Councilman VanValkenburg offered the following resolution setting June 17 for hearing date for various improvements: Mr. Hyde Mr, Roy.Thernel1 requested that the name Councilman Courtney seconded, and the. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON STORM SEWER NO. P-114 PERMANENT STREET SURFACING AND AND P-BA-131, STORH SEWER P-115 . CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER NO. P-BA-130 * AND WATERMAIN P-232 1. as to the feasibility of the proposed improvements described in the form of Notice of Hearing set forth below, and as to the estimated cost of such im- provements, said report is hereby approved and directed to be placed on file in the office of the Village Clerk. The Village Engineer, having submitted to the Council a preliminary report 2. Edina Village Hall, to consider in public hearing the views of all persons interested in said improvements. This Council shall meet on Monday, June 17, 1968, at 7:OO p.m. in the 3. ‘place and purpose of said meeting to be published in the official newspaper ‘once a week for two successive weeks, the second of which publication is to be not less than three days-from the date of said meeting, and to mail notice to all affected properties in substantially the following form: The Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of the time, (Official Publication) VILTAGE OF EDINA HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING STORM SEWER NO, P-114 PERMANENT STREET SURFACING AND C0NCBF;TE CURB AND GUTTER NO. P-BA-130 -_ __ .I EDINA VILLAGE COUNCIL-will meet at- the Edina Village Hall on Monday, June 17, 1968, at 7:OO porn., to cdnsider the following proposed improvements to be constructed under the authority granted by Mi’nnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, The approximate cost of said improvements are estimated by the Village as set forth below: ESTIMATED COST CONSTRUCTION OF VILLAGE STORM SEWER AND APPURTENANCES IN THE FOLLOWING: Halifax Avenue St. W. 51st St, and Halifax Ave. to France Ave . West 52nd Street from Minnehaha Creek to Halifax Ave. from-West 52nd St. to W. 50th On an easement line from approximately , 6/3/68 France Ave. from midway between West 50th St. and West 51st St. to West 49% St. West 49% St. from France Ave. to midway between France Ave. and Halifax Ave. ESTIMATED COST $125,342.42 CONSTRUCTION OF PERMANENT STREET SURFACING . AND CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER IN THE FOLLOWING: Improvement on Halifax Avenue between its intersection with West 50th Street and a point approximately 300 feet Southerly thereof; thence Southeasterly to the inter- section of France Avenue and West 51st Street I $176,076.65 The area proposed to be assessed for the cost of the proposed storm sewer listed . above includes all lots and tracts of land within the following described bound- aries : Commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 20, Aud. Sub. #172; thence West to the Northwest corner of Lot 31, Aud. Sub, #172; thence South along the West line of said Lot 31, a distance of 137.5'; thence West 137.5' South of and parallel to the North line of said Lot 32 to the West line of sqid Lot 32; thence North to the Southeast corner of Lot 1, Block 1, Allata's First Addition; thence West along the South line of Block 1, Allata's First Addition to the Southwest corner of Lot 3; thence South along the East line of Lot 1, Block 1, V. H. Adams Addition to the Southeast corner of said Lot$ thence West along the South line of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, V. H. Adams Addition to the Southwest corner of Lot 2; thence North along the West line of said Lot 2, to the Northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 1, Replat of Lot 6, Block 1, Lund Kruse Addition; thence West along the North line of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 of Replat of Lot 6, Block 1, Lund Kruse Addition to the Northwest corner of said Lot 2; thence South along the East line of-Lot; 5, Block 1, Lund Kruse Addition and its Southerly extension to the North line of West 50th Street; thence East along the North line of West 50th Street to.the intersection of the East line of Halifax Avenue South of West 50th Street extended North; thence South along the East line of Halifax Avenue to the Southwest corner of Lot 54, Aud. Sub. 8172; thence East along the South lines of Lots 54, 55, and 49 Aud. Sub. f172 to the Southeast corner of Lot 49, Aud. Sub. #172; thence North to point of beginning. The area proposed to be assessed for the cqst of the permanent street surfacing and concrete curb and gutter listed above includes Lots 41, 42, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, and East 143 feet of the North 72 feet of.Lot 56, all in Auditors Subdivision No. b I 172. 8. Florence B. Hallberg Village Clerk (Official Publication) VILLAGE OF EDINA -PIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING EDINA VILLAGE at 7:OO p.m., the authority STORM SEWER NO. P-115 COUNCIL will meet at the Edina Village Hall on Monday, June 17, 1968, to consider the following proposed improvement to be constructed under granted by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. The approximate cost of ESTIMATED COST said improvement is estimated by the Village as set forth below: CONSTRUCTION OF VILLAGE STORM SEWER WD APPURTENANCES IN THE FOLLOWING : Beard Avenue from W. 57th- St- t.0 W. 58th St. West 58th St. from Beard Ave. to alley between- - Alley between Abbott Ave. and Beard Ave. from Abbott Ave. and Beard Ave. .. W. 58th St. south 164 feet t. between Zenith Ave. and York Ave. $ 23,969.23 .Alley between W. 58th St. and W. 59th St. The area proposed to be assessed for the cost of the proposed storm sewer includes all lots and tracts of land within the following described boundaries: Commencing at a point in the center line of West 58th Street said point being 100' West of the center line of Beard Ave.; thence West along the center line of West 58th Street; thence Northwesterly to a point in the North line of Lot 7, Block 4, Abercrombie's Addition, said point being 40' West of the Northeast corner of said Lot 7; thence Northwesterly to a point on the South line of Lot 2, Block 2, Gould- smith's Addition, said point being 70' West of the Southeast corner of said Lot 2; thence Northwesterly to a point on the North line of Lot 11, Block 2, Brookline Addition, said point being 30' East of the Northwest corner of said,Lot 11; thence Northerly to a point in lot 4, Block 2, Brookline 2nd Addition, said point being 45' North of the South line and 27' West of the East line of said Lot 4; thence 6/3/68 Easterly to a point in the East line of Lot 3,.Block 2, BrookLne 2nd said point being 45' North of the South line of said Lot 3; thence Northeasterly to a point in the North line of Lot 2, Block 2, Brookline 2nd Addition, said point being 50' East of the Northwest corner of said Lot 2; thence Northeasterly to a point in the South line of Lot 12, Block 2, Edina Hills Brookline Addition, said point being 50' West of the Southeast corner of said Lot 12; thence Northerly and Northeasterly 50' West of and parallel to the West line of Chowen Ave. to the East line of Lot 6, Block 2, Edina Hills Brookline Addition; thence Southeasterly along the East line of Lot 6, Block 2, Edina Hills Brookline Addition to the center line of Chowen Avenue; thence Easterly along the center line of Chowen Ave. to the center line of Beard Avenue; thenc? Northerly along the center line of Beard Ave. $.I distance of 75'; thence Easterly to a point on the East line of Lot 10, Block 4, White Investment Company's Hidden Valley Addition, said point being 45' North of the Southeast corner of said Lot 10; thence North to the Northeast corner of said Lot 10; thence Easterly to a point on the North line of Lot 13, Block 4, White Invest- ment Company's Hidden Valley Addition, said point being 10' West of the Northeast corner of said Lot 13; thence Southeasterly to a point on the East line of said Lot 13; thence Southeasterly to a point on the East line of said Lot 13, said point being 40' North of the Southeast corner thereof; thence Easterly to a point on the East line of Lot 14, Block 4, White Investment Company's Hidden Valley Addition, said point being 50' North of the Southeast corner thereof; thence Southeasterly to a point on the East line of Lot 15, Block 4, White Investment Company's Hidden Valley Addition, said point being 20' North of the Southeast corner thereof; thence Easterly,to a point in Lot 16, Block 4, White Investment Company's Hidden Valley Addition, said point being 40' East of the West line and 20' North of the South line of said Lot 16, thence Southerly to a point on the North line of Lot 12, Block 3, Harriet Lawn Addition, said point being 98' East of the Northwest corner of said Lot 12; thence Southwesterly to the South line of said Lot 12, said point being 60' East of the Southwest corner of said Lot 12; thence Southerly to a point in the South line of Lot 10, Block 3, said point being 60' East of the Southwest corner of said Lot 10; thence Southeasterly to a point which is on the Easterly extension of the South line of Lot 9, Block 3, 7' East of the Southeast corner of said Lot 9; thence Southerly along the center line of vacated alley to the Westerly extension of the North line of Lot 3, Block 5, Brookline Addition; thence Southeasterly to a point in said Lot 3, said point being 40' East of the West line and 30' South of the North line; thence Easterly to a point in said Lot 3, said point being 30' South of the North line and 120' East of the West line; thence Southerly along the West line of Zenith Avenue to the Northeast corner of Lot 10, Block 6, Brookline Addition; thence Easterly along the North line of.Lots.-12 and 11, Block 3, Brookline Addition to a point in Lot 11, said point being 70' East of the Northwest corner thereof; thence Southerly to a point in the North line of Lot 1, Block 2, Harriet Manor 2nd Add- ition, said point being 65' East of the Northwest corner of said Lot 1; thence Southeasterly to a point in the South line of said Lot 1, said point being 90' East of the Southwest corner thereof; thence Southerly to a point in the South line of Lot 2, Block 2, Harriet Manor 2nd Addition, said point being 90' East of the Southwest corner thereof; thence Southwesterly to a point in the South line of Lot 4, Block 2, Harriet Manor 2nd Addition, said point being 50' East of the Southwest corner thereof; thenceSoutheasterly to a point in the South line of Lot 5, Block 2, Harriet Manor 2nd Addition, said point being 90' East of the Southwest corner thereof; thence Southwesterly to a point in the South line of Lot 9, Block 2, Harriet Manor 2nd Addition, said point being 50' East of the Southwest corner thereof; thence Westerly along the North lines of Lots 10 and 15, Block 2, Harriet Manor 2nd Addition to a point in the North line of Lot 15, said point being 80' West: of the Northeast c0rne.r of-said Lot 15; thence North to a point in the North line of Lot 16, Block 2, Harriet Manor 2nd Addition, said point being 80'West of the Northeast corneraof said Lot 16; thence West to a point in the North line of Lot 9, Block 3, Harriet Manor 2nd Addition, said point in the North line of Lot 9, Block 3, Harriet Manor 2nd Addition, said point being 20' West of the Northeast corner thereof; thence Southwesterly to a point in the center line of Abbott Avenue, said point being on the Easterly extension of the North line of Lot 12, Block 4, Harriet Manor 2nd Addition; thence Southerly along the center line of Abbott Avenue to the center line of West 59th Street; thence Southwesterly to a point on the North line of Lot I, Block 5, Harriet Manor 2nd Addition, said point being 60' West of the Northeast corner thereof; thence Southerly to a point in the South line of Lot 7, Block 5, Harriet Manor 2nd Addition, said point being 60' West of the Southeast corner thereof; thence Westerly to the Southwest corner of said lot 7; thence South along the West line of Lots 8 and'9, Block 5, Harriet Manor 2nd Addition and its Southerly extension to the North line of Lot 12, Block 5, Harriet Manor 2nd Addition;-thence Westerly along the North line of Lots 12, 13, and 14, Block 5, Harriet-Manor 2nd Addition and its Westerly extension to the center line of Beard Avenue; thence Southwesterly to a point on the West line of ildition, -c 6/3/68 Beard Avenue, said point being 117.5' North of the North line of West 60th Street; thence Westerly 117.5' North of and parallel to the North line of West 60th Street a distance of 45'; thence Northwesterly to a point 70' West of the West line of Beard Avenue and 174' North of the North line of West 60th Street; thence North to a point of beginning. (Official Publication) VILLAGE OF EDINA HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING VATERMAIN NO. P-232 PERMANENT STREET SURFACING AND CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER NO. P-BA-131 EDINA VILLAGE COUNCIL will meet at the Edina Village Hall on Monday, June 17, 1968, at 7:OO porn., to consider the following proposed improvements to be constructed under the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. cost of said improvements are estimated by the Village as set forth below: The approximate ESTIMATED COST CONSTRUCTION OF VILLAGE WATERMAIN AND r A'PPURTENANCES IN THE FOLLOF7ING: Walnut Drive from West 59th St. Vernon Ave. from Walnut Drive to to Vernon Ave. Tamarac Avenue $ 18,978.65 .- .. .- CONSTRUCTION OF PERMAMT STREET SURFACING AND CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER IN THE FOLLOWING: Walnut Drive fromvernon Avenue to West 59th Street $ 26,401.'91 The area proposed to be assessed for the,cost of the proposed Watermain listed above includes Lots 1 thru 13 incl., 17alnut Ridge Addition; Lots 2 thru 6 incl,, Block 2, and Lots 8 thru 12 incl., Block 3, Walnut Ridge First Addition. The area proposed to be assessed for the cost of the proposed Permanent Street Surfacing and Concrete Curb and Gutter listed above includes Lots 1 thru 13 incl,, Valnut Ridge Addition; Lots 1 thru 7 incl., Block 2, and Lots 8 thru 12 incl,, Block 3, Walnut Ridge First Addition. Motion for the adoption of on rollcall there were five ayes, the resolution and the Deputy Village Clerk BIDS TO BE TAKEN FOR VARIOUS IMPROVEMENTS. Upon recommendation of Mr. Hite that bids be taken for Watermain No. 228, Sanitary Sewer No. 266, Storm Sewer No. BA- 127, and Grading and Graveling No. C-94, Councilman VanValkenburg offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS WATERMAIN NO. 228, SANITARY SEWER NO. 266 AND . STORM SEWR NO. BA-127 AND GRADING AND GRAVELING NO. (2-94 BIDS CLOSE Jm 28, 1968 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE V1L;LAGE COUNCIL, VILLAGE OF EDINA, MINNESOTA: I. The plans and specifications for the proposed improvements set forth in the following Advertisement for Bids form, heretofore prepared by the Village Engineer and now on file in the office of the Village Clerk are hereby approved. 2. letin the following notice for bids for improvements: The Clerk shall cause to be published in the Edina Sun and Construction Bul- (Official Publication) VILLAGE OF EDINA HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS WATERMAIN NO. 228 SANITARY SEWER NO. 266 STOREi SEWER NO. BA-127 GRADING AND GRAVELING NO. C-94 BIDS CLOSE JUNE 28, 1968 lage Hall, 4801West 50th Street, at 11:OO a.m., Friday, June 28, 1968, to consider SEALED BIDS will be received and opened in the Council Chambers in the Edina Vil- \ 6/3/68 said bids for the construction of Watermain, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Sewer, Grading and Graveling. The following are approximate quantities of major items: WATERMAIN AND APPURTENANCES 14 Each, Hydrants 10,000 L/F 8" - 12" Watermain SANITARY SEWER AND APPURTENANCES 6,000 L/F 9" V.C.P.. 2,000 L/F 6" V.C.P. 4,000 L/F 6" D.1.P. 1 Each, Lift Station STORM SEWER AND APPURTENANCES 7,000 : 1,200 L/F 12" .. 42" R.G.P. L./F 15" - 48" C,M.P, 300 C/Y 1" - 1%" Rock GRADING AND GRAVELING 235,000 C/Y Common Excavation 44,000 C/Y Swamp Excavation ' 137 37,000 L/F Structural Plate Culvert S/Y 8" Thick Compacted Class 5 Gravel 200 Each, Trees Cleared and Grubbed - Work must be done as describe3 in plans and specifications on file in the office of the Village Clerk. Plans and specifications are available for a deposit of $25.00-(by check). of the plans and specifications with a bona fide bid. No bids will be considered unless sealed and accompanied by cash deposit, bid bond or cert- ified check payable to the Village Clerk in the amount of at least ten (10) percent of amount of base bid. and all bids. . BY ORDER OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL. Motion for adoption of the on rollcall there were five Said depbsit to be returned upon return The Council reserves the right to reject any Mayor I The meetings agenda having been covered, Councilman VanValkenburg's motion for adjournment was seconded by Councilman Johnson, and t€ie meeting was adjourned at 9:26 p.m. .- TI